Ruth Kelly has cake, eats it
Yesterday Ruth Kelly appeared at an aviation conference, attended by the great and good of the aviation industry. She regaled them all with a speech which called for... well, business as usual really, with a dash of greenwash.
Kelly has totally bought the premise that economic growth and environmental salvation are intrinsically linked. Sadly this is utter tosh: our society is only able to produce goods and services at the rate it does because of our wanton disregard for the environment. As far as aviation is concerned, you have to ask who you trust more: the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change research (prognosis: aviation expansion cannot co-exist with climate change targets) or Rod Eddington, former head of British Airways (motto: keep on flyin').
Pity the Secretary of State: she seems to be flunking Aviation Economics 101. She applauds the industry's contribution to our "multi-billion pound tourist sector", apparently forgetting one all important word: deficit. Britons on 'cheap' flights spend £17billion more abroad than tourists spend in the UK.
Our "pro-green, pro-growth" Transport Secretary makes a pretty bold claim: "By working together we can build a secure and competitive aviation sector that supports a growing economy in a low carbon world". For those left in any doubt, she goes on to reject "the myth that as a nation we must either choose to be 'rich and dirty' or 'poor and green', instead opting for the rather odd statement that "tackling climate change is the real pro-growth strategy".
Of course no one had been suggesting that tackling climate change involved shutting down all our factories and offices; quite the opposite in fact. According to the Tyndall Centre, it's not climate or the economy, it's aviation growth or the economy: hitting our Kyoto targets while expanding the aviation industry will involve decarbonising the rest of our economy. There's only a certain number of lightbulbs to change; after that, it's bye bye manufacturing sector.
Brave Ruth then points to Europe, where the Government is "arguing for a European cap on aviation emissions levels below those of today. So if people choose to fly, they pay directly for real reductions in carbon elsewhere". Hold on: "a cap in emissions levels below those of today" means a reduction in total aviation emissions, whereas "real reductions in carbon elsewhere" means reductions in other sectors so aviation emissions can keep growing. Surely if we reduce aviation's emissions, we don't have to pay others to reduce their emissions.
So what does the Secretary of State want? The answer is made very clear. Heathrow must expand, or "the inevitable result will be the loss of flights and jobs to airports on the Continent" - despite President Sarkozy rulling out expanding Charles de Gaulle, our closest 'competitor'. Kelly claims this will be done within "strict environmental conditions" - but seeing as the Government has been colluding with BAA to fix Nitrous Oxide levels, I wouldn't hold out much hope for their stringency...
